91. In this case, the Court deems it necessary to analyze the alleged arbitrariness of Mr. Acosta Martínez's deprivation of liberty in conjunction with the discriminatory grounds recognized by the State. 92. It should be recalled that, in accordance with the facts established in this judgment (supra para. 42), the police officers went to the place where the arrests occurred and justified their intervention on having received an anonymous complaint that an armed person was present there. However, although the exit of the Maluco Beleza nightclub was very crowded at that time in the morning, as evidenced by the different testimonies contributed to this case, when the police arrived there, they only asked the persons of African descent there for their ID cards and arrested them, with no objective evidence indicating that one of them was carrying a weapon. Furthermore, once the identity of the brothers Walter and Marcelo Gonçalves Da Luz and Mr. Acosta Martínez had been verified, and despite the fact that none of them were the armed person the police action supposedly sought, the three were taken to Police Station No. 5 of the Federal Police of the City of Buenos Aires (supra para. 44). At the time of the arrests, Mr. Acosta Martínez himself stated that “they were only arrested for being black” (supra para. 43). 93. This shows that the police officers were more motivated by racial profiling than by a real suspicion that an offense had been committed. The broad nature of the police edicts enabled them, a posteriori, to justify their intervention and give it the appearance of legality. However, these grounds demonstrate the arbitrary nature of Mr. Acosta Martínez’s detention. 94. When analyzing the reasons for Mr. Acosta Martínez’s arrest and deprivation of liberty, the context of racial discrimination and police persecution experienced by persons of African descent in Argentina—as described in paragraphs 31 to 40 of this judgment—must be taken into account. 95. In the same way, the leeway provided in the norms empowering the police to deprive someone of liberty based on edicts that punish characteristics more than conduct ends up being used arbitrarily and based on prejudices and stereotypes of certain groups that coincide with those historically discriminated against. Indeed, as the 2015 Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms emphasizes: Police, immigration and detention officials frequently employ racial and ethnic profiling, in many different and pernicious ways. Government policies may also facilitate discretionary practices that allow law enforcement authorities to target groups or individuals on the basis of their skin colour, dress or facial hair or the languages they speak. Implicit biases also sometimes motivate profiling. Although some studies have demonstrated how ineffective racial and ethnic profiling is, officials continue to use the practice.149 96. The Durban program of action defines racial profiling at “the practice of police and other law enforcement officials relying, to any degree, on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin as the basis for subjecting persons to investigatory activities or for determining whether an individual was engaged in criminal activity.”150 The Committee on Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Mr. Mutuma Ruteere, UN Doc. A/HRC/29/46, April 20, 2015, para. 16. 149 World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Durban, 2001, para. 72. 150 30